Well in the case of attributions of artworks, these things tend to go
back and forth a lot, so museums take a fairly pragmatic approach when
they invent a "pseudo-artist". They will attribute something like a
previously attributed B to "school of B" or "follower of B" and sort
it as B for all other intents and purposes. In the creator field of
the artwork template on Commons we have the "after" qualification,
which softens the attribution quite a bit - are you looking for
something like that?

2014-05-05 15:43 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca <dacu...@gmail.com>:
> Jane, this info is in Wikipedia. For instance see:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltzes_(Chopin)
>
> N. 17 was attributed to Chopin (Kobylańska and others), Chomiński says that
> claim is spurious. And that is just one of many examples.
> According to Wikidata principles we should collect both statements and let
> the reader decide which source to believe.
> I can enter Kobylańska's claim, but I have no way to enter Chomiński's
> counter-claim.
>
> I think it is important to be able to model that information because that
> is how sources act, they don't limit themselves to make "certain" claims,
> they also make "uncertain" claims or counter other claims (even if they
> don't offer better ones).
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hmm, I guess I am still not getting it - both of your examples
>> wouldn't make it into one of my Wikipedia articles, and I would
>> probably remove them from an existing article if I was working on it.
>> If it's not factual enough for Wikipedia, then it's not factual enough
>> for Wikidata.
>>
>> I recall a situation where painter A was documented as a pupil of
>> painter B who according to the sources died when painter A was just a
>> young boy of 8. Either very young children could become pupils of
>> other painters, or the original document got painter B mixed up with
>> someone else. Either way it is highly doubtful that painter A was
>> strongly influenced professionally by the art of B. I would probably
>> include this info on Wikipedia but would not bother to include it on
>> Wikidata.
>>
>> 2014-05-05 14:46 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca <dacu...@gmail.com>:
>> > Hi Jane,
>> >
>> > No, I was not referring to books in particular, but of course it could
>> > be
>> > applied to books as well, and to works of art, and to many things in
>> > general.
>> > I agree that the statement is valuable and that it should be included,
>> but
>> > I don't know how to represent it.
>> >
>> > Following your examples, what I am trying to represent is not what you
>> say,
>> > but instead:
>> > a) uncertainty: "it is hinted that Pete was the son of Klaus, but I
>> > have
>> no
>> > conclusive proof"
>> > b) rebuttal: "Source A says that Pete was the younger brother of Klaus,
>> > I
>> > can disprove that (but I cannot provide an alternative)"
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Micru
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> David,
>> >> I assume you are referring to books. The same is true for works of
>> >> art. The reason why these statements are still valuable is because it
>> >> is an attribution based on grounds determined by someone somewhere and
>> >> based on that loose statement alone are therefore considered of
>> >> interest. You basically make a decision to include the statement or
>> >> not, as you see fit.
>> >>
>> >> When it comes to people, one source may say "Pete was the son of
>> >> Klaus", while another source says "Pete was the younger brother of
>> >> Klaus". I think it's just a question of picking one on Wikidata to
>> >> keep the family aspect of the relationship (whichever it is) intact,
>> >> and sooner or later one or the other will be chosen. It's a wiki after
>> >> all.
>> >> Jane
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2014-05-05 11:24 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca <dacu...@gmail.com>:
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm having some cases where a work has been attributed to an author
>> >> > by
>> >> > a
>> >> > source, but the source itself says this attribution is "dubious", or
>> it
>> >> is
>> >> > contesting a previous attributions as "spurious".
>> >> >
>> >> > As I see it, the rank of the statement is not deprecated (in fact it
>> is
>> >> > "normal" or even "preferred"), but I have no way of representing
>> >> > this
>> >> > "claim uncertainty" or "claim rebuttal".
>> >> >
>> >> > Is there any hidden parameter for this or should it be addressed
>> >> > with
>> a
>> >> > qualifier?
>> >> >
>> >> > Cheers,
>> >> > Micru
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Wikidata-l mailing list
>> >> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Etiamsi omnes, ego non
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Etiamsi omnes, ego non
>

_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Reply via email to